Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How would eliminating the 60-vote threshold affect Supreme Court confirmations?
Executive summary
Eliminating the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court confirmations converts the decision from a supermajority safeguard into a simple-majority outcome, a change that was implemented for Supreme Court nominees in 2017 under Republican Senate leadership and previously applied to other nominations in 2013 under Democratic leadership — a shift that materially reduces the Senate minority’s leverage and makes confirmations more directly tied to narrow partisan control [1] [2] [3]. The procedural move, commonly called the “nuclear option,” allows a majority to reinterpret Senate rules without the prior supermajority requirement, accelerating confirmations but also increasing the likelihood of more ideologically extreme or partisan nominees prevailing when one party controls the Senate [2] [3].
1. Why the procedural wrench changed the confirmation game — and who did what
The history matters: the Senate’s traditional 60-vote threshold functioned as a deliberative brake that required some bipartisan support to end debate and proceed to a confirmation vote. That brake was first dramatically altered for most nominations in 2013 when Democratic leadership employed the nuclear option to lower cloture thresholds for executive branch and lower-court nominations, explicitly excluding Supreme Court nominees at that time; Republicans then extended the change to Supreme Court nominees in 2017, using the same simple-majority mechanism to confirm Neil Gorsuch, effectively eliminating the 60-vote safeguard for the Court [1] [2] [3]. These sequential moves show how majorities in either party can retool Senate rules to secure confirmations, and they demonstrate that the Senate’s norms — not constitutional requirements — were the primary targets of the change [1] [2].
2. Immediate procedural consequences: faster confirmations, weaker minority rights
Switching to a simple-majority rule for Supreme Court confirmations yields faster, more predictable outcomes when a single party controls the Senate, because the majority no longer needs to negotiate with the minority or secure 60 votes to end debate. That procedural ease reduces the bargaining incentives that previously forced nominees to win at least some cross-party support, thereby increasing the majority party’s ability to confirm candidates aligned closely with its policy priorities without compromise [2] [3]. The consequence is a Senate where the minority’s formal tools for blocking or moderating nominees are diminished, shifting leverage to the majority and making judicial selection more responsive to short-term partisan control rather than enduring consensus.
3. Political consequences: polarization and perception of legitimacy
Removing the 60-vote threshold increases the risk of ideologically polarized confirmations and intensifies public perceptions that the Court is a political prize. When confirmations occur on simple majorities, nominees are more likely to be chosen for partisan fidelity rather than broad acceptability, which can deepen partisan divisions and feed narratives of the Court as a tool of the governing party. The procedural change thus affects not just Senate strategy but the broader legitimacy calculus surrounding the Court, as defeats of the minority’s blocking power make subsequent decisions appear more directly attributable to a fleeting partisan majority [1] [2] [3].
4. Strategic trade-offs for both parties: short-term gain, long-term risk
Both parties have used the nuclear option when in power, illustrating a strategic calculus: gain immediate control over confirmations at the expense of eroding a norm that could protect the minority in future cycles. The 2013 and 2017 episodes show that each party will prioritize short-term control over preserving the 60-vote norm if it believes the stakes are high; the result is a tit-for-tat deterioration of Senate rules that may produce more extreme swings in the Court’s composition as control of the Senate changes hands [1] [2] [3]. This dynamic creates an incentive for majorities to act while they can, but it also sets the stage for future retaliation when the minority becomes the majority.
5. What’s missing from the debate and why context matters
Discussions often conflate procedural mechanics with constitutional inevitability, but the key omission is that the 60-vote rule was a Senate rule, not a constitutional mandate; majorities can and have changed it, and doing so changes incentives across nominations and other confirmations [3]. Analysts and partisans frequently frame the nuclear option either as a necessary step to overcome obstruction or as a reckless norm-breaking move; both frames are accurate in different respects, but neither fully captures the systemic trade-offs: faster decision-making and majority control come at the cost of reduced minority protections and increased polarization, outcomes clearly visible in the post-2017 confirmation landscape [1] [2] [3].